Week 10 Section 3 - Geckelman!

Coming from a South Campus major with a somewhat rudimentary background in physics, but a greater interest in plasma and plasma technology I can safely say the Dr. Geckelman’s lecture was a bit over the top for the nature of this class. What he is doing is absolutely amazing and is mind blowing, but unlike Gimzewski from last week’s lectures, he failed to condense the information and make it a bit prettier for presentation purposes. Electromagnetism is confusing, yet he threw around terms and properties as if we got it, I honestly could only understand the very basics of the magnetic spins he spoke of measuring and manipulating. He touched on the amazing properties of plasma in this scientifically esoteric manner, showing graphs and diagrams of which I only recall the “birth of an octopus” and what is more, I do not remember what it referred to. I also felt it a bit off-color in light of our noble endeavors of bridging science and art for him to mention the only art in his presentation as being “pretty pictures.” Geckelman is most preoccupied, and rightly so, with his own research in plasma physics and I can only imagine how much he would want to expose us to the field without losing any of the complexity inherent in it.

I brought up Gimzewski, although I disliked his cavalier attitude in regards to research, because he represents exactly what I would imagine a scientist influenced by art should be like. Geckelman, Scerri, and even Taylor represent science in pure form and in all reality act as counterpoints to the artists mentioned in class, however their bridging of art and science left little impression on me. Science does not need to be so complicated; explaining it in a verbal fashion is easy really. Look at the news paper, world politics and international relations are far more complex than C++ code, but we as consumers of the media and newspapers demand it to be simplified without losing too much meaning. We do not buy journals on medicine, which are incredibly hard to read for any length of time, to hear about the latest advances and make decisions in politics. Why then should scientific presentation raise the left eyebrow of anyone not involved in that specific field? Geckelman’s work is fascinating, but I could not blame the people leaving in the middle of his lecture- I am a science major and I can safely say that my basic physics professors can make a ball rolling down a hill seem pretty cool; Geckelman’s physics lecture on Wednesday made me want to stab myself to keep awake.

While society and current thought has told us to dismiss this as just him being a boring scientist, I argue that his type of lecturing is more detrimental than it may have appeared. I brought Richard Dawkins up in a previous blog, but I feel I must bring him up again now. He represents lucidity in scientific thought. He is a Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. I mean how much do scientists suck at explaining if Oxford had to give this man a position specifically to present science in a clear and understandable way to the public. Tongue in cheekiness aside, I have to say that Dawkins is truly what the world needs to understand science. He is almost like an interpreter, taking the masses of scientific thought and condensing it into the written word; it is important to note that scientists like to do this as well, however as someone who is studying English as well as science I am moved to tears, not of happiness, every time I read a scientific journal. It’s horrible.

It is fine to speak as a scientist among scientists, but please have the decency to learn a little French if you’re in France.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

(This has little to do with what I just said, but it's funny and New Scientist is a great Science journal that represents lucidity in thought without losing too much meaning.)